(13-03-2011 11:25 AM)Soldieringon Wrote: . . . This is devolving into one of the most ridiculous threads I have read on here in a while.

TrainWreck Wrote:your mind has been corrupted, and it is the fault of atheists perpetuating the compromised ideas about science in order to make friends with the theists, because they have more money then the atheists, and the atheists need money for their organizations, such as the Secular Humanists.

REALLY!?!?!?!?!?!? You are going to sit here on an Atheist message board and make that absolutely baseless claim?

Yes sir, I am. It's for our own good to understand where we are after, at least, ten years of atheist discussions on the Internet forums - nothing to show for it. Nothing has been resolved, discussions are rehashed every so often to no resolve - over and over and over.

(13-03-2011 11:25 AM)Soldieringon Wrote: You, sir, are ridiculous.
Compromised ideas about science? It seems to me after reading this ENTIRE thread, that the one here with compromised ideas is YOU. You are the one mixing up philosophical and scientific definitions. I may not be the most learned person on this message board, but even I see that you are dead wrong in about half of your posts on this thread.

I suggest you visit my site concerning knowledge classification. Basically, what I am arguing is that because of the erroneousness of the Dewey and Library of Congress classification systems, society suffers the compromises of believing that science cannot help us resolve society's ailments of disorder. I suggest that atheists suffer more than the theists, because atheists fail to recognize that every organization has the potential to guide society - which is the purpose of politics.

Internet forums have the greatest potential to handle the situation, but the forums do not settle anything - what are you talking about here?

(13-03-2011 11:25 AM)Soldieringon Wrote: . . . This is devolving into one of the most ridiculous threads I have read on here in a while.

Show me where a forum discussion has satisfied you as "evolving" into something other than ridiculous?

After ten years of atheists discussions on the Internet there is nothing - it is all a waste of memory space. Show me something worth archiving? Something that is of benefit to mankind.

I'll bet you resort to claiming that theists aren't doing anything either - be brave, make that comparison, see where it gets YOU.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define realityTheism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines realityAtheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefully

You're asking the question with the assumption that the other parties AREN'T atheist parties. There are no theist parties. There are the republicans, whose ideologies are close enough to the christian ideology that the two consistently coincide, but there are also atheist republicans. This holds true with every political party.

And to form a party based on the lack of belief in something is rather redundant. That's like forming a party that runs on the platform of "not believing in leprechauns." One of the biggest complaints non-believers have with religious folks is that they force their beliefs on other people. So now you want to form a party that does the same thing to them?

Besides, atheists all have different political views, so to try to mobilize republicans, democrats, libertarians, etc behind the non-political common ground of "we don't believe in fairy tales" isn't going to accomplish much. The few people on this board don't even agree on politics and you want to try to unite the country? We would just be setting atheism in a national spotlight, and every time it fails, the theists will have a perfect example to point their finger and at and go "see, atheism doesn't work."

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."

Like I said, atheists cannot accomplish any resolve of anything. Atheists are no smarter than theists, although, atheists will argue that theists have corrupted reasoning skills.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define realityTheism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines realityAtheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefully

This forum isn't helping any? The people on here discussing things are learning and evolving their own theories, yes often enough that doesn't mean they change anything in a field like philosophy, but not everyone in the world has read every philosophy ever made. If I come here with an opinion that is baseless and it is torn down, then I study why it's baseless. It's always left to me to actually accept that they might be right when they claim it. Everyone needs verification and proper skepticism by peers. We are a peer group not activists.

We are not here discussing how to effectively eradicate religion, we sometimes discuss better ways to argue with it. But that is not the agenda of these forums. These forums have the agenda of letting atheists feel there is a place for them to discuss their views freely. If a thousand people come here with similar fallacious claims we may explain it a thousand times, but that doesn't mean those people learning about their claims is meaningless because it's a repetitive trend. Each person then goes on to do other things. Statements on here may help in writing a good thesis, or inspire a new Philosophy.But if they don't it's ok. Our goal in this forum is to have a place where those who don't believe can discuss the fact they don't.

As far as your pole I don't see what an atheist party would really be doing politically outside of furthering the division of church and state. Unless an atheist party is trying to alter the constitution and remove freedom of religion. Anyone can form a political party it's not hard, but forming one doesn't mean you'll get anywhere with it. So we make an atheist party and are another one of many political parties that get less than 1% of votes. What does that prove? That does even less than being here discussing with people their theories and meting them out.

I discussed the definition of religion known to me by anthropology and a member here, CFHMagnet, liked this definition so much that it changes how he's going to write a paper. That makes a much bigger wave than being an unimportant political force. There is a communist party in the US, they never win enough votes to hold seats of office. So what difference does it make whether they are there or not?

This is a place where we discuss ideas, and for all you know many of us may be atheism activists, that's just not what we're doing on this forum.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.

(14-03-2011 11:29 AM)TrainWreck Wrote: Like I said, atheists cannot accomplish any resolve of anything. Atheists are no smarter than theists, although, atheists will argue that theists have corrupted reasoning skills.

You're under the assumption that atheists are a collective of people working towards a common goal. "Atheist" is simply a word describing those who reject belief in gods. We are not trying to accomplish anything. There are no atheist mandates, or ethics, or directives. This is analogous to "aunicornists" (those who lack belief in unicorns), who are not some group of people with a driving goal to eliminate belief in unicorns. It's just the term to describe those who don't believe in unicorns.

And as far as atheists being smarter than theists, I would say that there is evidence to support this. 97% of all the scientists in the world are atheists. The smartest icons throughout our history were atheist, or at the least deist, which was the atheism of the time before you could challenge theism and not be burned alive. Gallup polls show that college students and college grads are more likely to be atheist than high school educated (and also more likely to be liberals).

To be theist is to deny science, evidence, and reason and to trust unwaveringly in outdated beliefs established before we even knew the earth wasn't geocentric. It's kind of difficult to be "intelligent" while also carrying this mental stigma.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."

(13-03-2011 12:45 PM)Sacrieur Wrote: Correct, my mind has been corrupted and tainted by logic and reason. Now I must ask why and what and how. I must know the answers to things, and I must know that they are true.

Yeah, but if nobody agrees with you what is it worth?
---

(13-03-2011 12:45 PM)Sacrieur Wrote: So you're claiming that atheists are actually more poor than theists, and that the secular humanists (which isn't a group, it is a type of philosophy) are poor and a group of all atheists are behind some master scheme... Sir, we're not a group or an organization. Atheists can be socialists or communists or republican or democrat, we aren't organized in the least bit.

Are you blind? How do you think the billboard and bus sign campaigns come to be - miracles???

This is the problem, atheists are organizing, but they see it as something other than what it is - trying to steer society - politics. Yeah, the principles seem minute compared to the complete agendas of the established political parties, but that is because atheists take a backseat to devising complete agendas, because atheists perpetuate this idea that they cannot devise a complete agenda because they believe the only agenda could be is the agenda against theist; instead of using this great ideal of LOGIC to devise a complete political agenda to make this a better world - instead atheists leave it to the theists to be their guardians.

(13-03-2011 12:45 PM)Sacrieur Wrote: It may seem like we're science advocates, but that is only because a lot of us have a genuine interest in science. I'll be a scientist myself when I graduate from college.

If atheists are not advocating science as a guide for society - what, pray tell, are they advocating? Reason??? Well, obviously, everyone has a different sense of reason, because there is nothing being resolved.

Once atheists realize what atheists are doing, then they can put together a more useful agenda, instead of a half-assed campaign. Consider the slogan, "Celebrate Reason," what do atheists do to celebrate reason? Nothing - it's a meaningless slogan, just like any theist slogan. Now, if atheists were to organize a feast in their communities and toast their members who have exemplified reason in the past year, then atheists would have something going that might attract more members, and so forth with guiding society - politics.

(14-03-2011 12:04 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote: And as far as atheists being smarter than theists, I would say that there is evidence to support this. 97% of all the scientists in the world are atheists. The smartest icons throughout our history were atheist, or at the least deist, which was the atheism of the time before you could challenge theism and not be burned alive. Gallup polls show that college students and college grads are more likely to be atheist than high school educated (and also more likely to be liberals).

To be theist is to deny science, evidence, and reason and to trust unwaveringly in outdated beliefs established before we even knew the earth wasn't geocentric. It's kind of difficult to be "intelligent" while also carrying this mental stigma.

Yeah, that's an excellent principle for constructing a full political agenda - atheists are free of the stupid stuff that theists are bogged with. But in the mean time, although atheists are smarter, the less intelligent theists are running the show, because the brilliant atheists, like you, are bogged in this circular logic that mirrors the logic of the theists - you are not straightening things out amongst yourselves, much less convincing theists that they are erroneous, because you do not have anything.

You have to give us this crap that atheism cannot go any further than disbelief in gods - as if Democrat advocates democracy, and Republican advocates republic, because their root word defines them to be so. Call the atheist political party "The Common Sense Party," maybe that will help you see where to go.

Check out your signature,"Words like 'God' and 'Allah' must go the way of 'Apollo' and 'Baal,' or they will unmake our world." You see, you are putting the responsibility of guiding the world on the theists to change, instead of putting the responsibility on the atheists to lead.

Now look what I have done. I have actually devised a product that will help guide reasoning - brilliant stuff. Most of the disagreements that contribute to the lack of resolve are because of the lack of proper classification of ideas - category error. Eventually, people will use my system, like they use a dictionary for referencing support of their arguments. Why do people use a dictionary as a reference?

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define realityTheism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines realityAtheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefully

It's funny that the Theists have sponsored what is by many believed to be the only two political parties in the U.S. since their inception. But to think atheism can afford a strong foundation that benefits the nation for it's own sake, instead of for the traditional "God and Country" stance afforded by the GOP and Democrats respectively, is somehow laughable to some.

Atheism isn't a political ideology. However, Theism is. We can rehash the need for change in the social circles and political circles till Rumpelstiltskin changes his diaper, but it's not going to happen until we change the parameters that make the quandary persistent in the first place.

When the Congressional chamber has, In God We Trust, embossed in bronze on the back wall. When a Senate Chaplain opens proceedings every morning as a matter of policy. When most, if not all, of our courtrooms from Federal unto State have that same four word affirmation embossed on the wall behind the Judges bench, while a court officer affords a Bible to witnesses upon which they often swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them Christian god, (While many jurisdictions today afford the option to simply affirm, without the Bible present) the Theistic base that leads this countries Administrative, Legislative and Judicial branch is unmistakable.
Not to forget "In God We Trust" as it appears on the back of our currency.

An Atheist party in this ultra-conservative and liberal melting pot would be seen as something tantamount to the National Socialism of the Hitler era. A figure often cited when the ignorant attempt to denigrate atheism as already having made history as a political ideology. Bearing to life an atheist party now, would insure certain doom.

Instead, what needs to happen is more atheists need to come out of the closet and onto the dais and speak from the podium as they boldly pronounce a run for office.
Grassroots have to start somewhere where there's a chance to grow strong so that it's worth the effort of reaching for the sun.

(14-03-2011 11:03 AM)TrainWreck Wrote: After ten years of atheists discussions on the Internet there is nothing - it is all a waste of memory space...

Well it's a bold thing that you've chosen to walk your talk and thus refuse to waste memory space over nothing but the same old same.

(14-03-2011 05:07 PM)GassyKitten Wrote: Instead, what needs to happen is more atheists need to come out of the closet and onto the dais and speak from the podium as they boldly pronounce a run for office.

That requires organization, political organization - an agenda of policies that atheists believe would be beneficial to all people; but the problem is that atheists do not believe they are capable of devising an agenda, although they are willing to proclaim that they are willing to listen to any ideas, because they are so open-minded and have the superior ability to critically analyze the propensity of any abstraction, because they are without the irrational error of believing in gods.

The only political agenda atheists have is that if theists would stop believing in gods then they would make much better political leaders then atheists, themselves.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define realityTheism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines realityAtheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefully

(14-03-2011 05:07 PM)GassyKitten Wrote: Instead, what needs to happen is more atheists need to come out of the closet and onto the dais and speak from the podium as they boldly pronounce a run for office.

That requires organization, political organization - an agenda of policies that atheists believe would be beneficial to all people; but the problem is that atheists do not believe they are capable of devising an agenda, although they are willing to proclaim that they are willing to listen to any ideas, because they are so open-minded and have the superior ability to critically analyze the propensity of any abstraction, because they are without the irrational error of believing in gods.

The only political agenda atheists have is that if theists would stop believing in gods then they would make much better political leaders then atheists, themselves.

I think the mistake you're making is the same one that Theists make when attempting to impugn non-Theists/Theism. You're speaking in all encompassing terms as you attempt to indict all atheists.

And claiming the only political agenda atheists have is that if theists would stop believing in gods etc... is short sighted and ignorant of the true facts.
I say this because for your blanket observation to have merit, there would have to be no atheists invested in politics, ergo promoting an agenda from that standpoint, at all. But instead, those with political aspirations, per you, would remain relegating themselves to discussion forums and atheist on~line communities rehashing the same old same.

This simply is not true. Now, people here who've read me for the while I've been here know I'm prone to linkage to back what I say, when needed. I'll refrain in this case and let you do the work. If you can make the blanket observation, which is in error, you can challenge me to prove I'm right saying you're wrong by seeking out the information that proves either or, yourself.